9 ms·

Amazon started a Twitter war because Jeff Bezos was pissed

95 points by yoelo 6y ago

kerng 6y ago
This made Amazon look quite childish honestly. I hope that union thing works out so there will be more checks and balances in place going forward. Those bottle peeing stories and all that surveillance is quite horrible... I also heard lower levels don't have access to the company directory anymore. So they basically got cut off from career and socializing opportunities also inside the company.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > This made Amazon look quite childish honestly. Don't you think it makes Warren look childish? She said she wants to break up big tech companies so that they aren't able to challenge her. I think that's an absolutely appalling thing for a lawmaker to say. Warren should be defending their right to challenger her, not attacking it, and she should be empowering institutions to challenge her, not attacking those that are. I can't understand how anyone is defending this craziness. It's chilling.
  - toomuchtodo 6y ago
    If I have to choose to defend someone, it’s not Amazon and Bezos. He and chosen management had a choice on what sort of company and culture to build. Choose poorly and then be surprised when government and the public come after you? Relentlessly tactless and tone deaf.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      Institutions should have the right to challenge lawmakers without thread of retribution for doing so, even if you don't like what they have to say.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        Agreed, but I also agree with Warren that Amazon should be broken up. Warren’s stance pales in comparison to the machine of suffering that is Amazon fulfillment/retail. Nuance and pragmatism.
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        Does she want to break them up for for the benefit of the people she represents, or does she want to break them up because they're 'snotty' to her? She's explicitly said it's because of the latter. I hope it's because of the former, but I have to trust her own words are lies to believe that!
        busterarm 6y ago
        ...Elizabeth Warren is a serial liar.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      Warren isn't exactly mainstream government. She can't even get her "progressive" credentials consistent as she rarely misses an opportunity to be the hawk. She sure loves those foreign wars.
      - toomuchtodo 6y ago
        They aren’t making a whole lot of new conservatives in America. Centrist Democrats are either aging out or getting pushed out. Change takes time. Gotta defend against people like Bezos in the meantime ($187B? and still throwing a childish fit about your workers trying to have better working conditions? Really?).
        busterarm 6y ago
        None of that makes Warren above criticism. And if you think America isn't minting a lot of new conservatives, I think you've been sleeping the last 6 years. Conservatives just had the biggest voter turnout that they've had since Ronald Reagan. And despite our Gen X/Millenial social circles which are heavily left, Zoomers are much more conservative than us.
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
        You were attacking and criticizing Warren (not I, as I focused on parties driven by ideas and moors), which doesn’t concern me and has little value regardless unless you vote in her state. The greater issue is what happens when speaking truth to power garners contempt and harm instead of cooperation and humility. Enter regulation, stage right.
        busterarm 6y ago
        Would you not say that Amazon's critical tweet of Warren was speaking truth to power?
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
  - paulryanrogers 6y ago
    Legislators shouldn't be afraid of challengers. That said, it's reasonable to fear corporations with so many resources they capture regulators and can bankroll astroturfed challengers. I'd like both a balanced, accountable government and healthy, competitive markets please.
  - elil17 6y ago
    Why should big tech companies be able to challenge democratically elected representatives? Shouldn't political participation be primarily in the hands of people, not special interests? I get that the question of whether corporations should have a role in politics is up for debate, but I think most of the people who elected Warren believe that there's no place for big money in politics.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > Why should big tech companies be able to challenge democratically elected representatives? Every person and every (legal) institution should be able to (verbally and in writing) challenge a democratically elected representative. I can't understand why that even needs stating? She's literally threatening legislative retribution for being "snotty" to her. That's appalling, surely?
      - elil17 6y ago
        If Warren said that to a person I think it would absolutely be appalling and I get that in the current US legal system corporations have a right to free speech. I just don't think that's an intrinsic moral right the way it is for people. I think it's a valid, reasonable view that Amazon should not be able to influence politics in any way.
  - HomeDeLaPot 6y ago
    One way to interpret Warren's tweet is "she doesn't believe that private corporations should have the ability to stand up to politicians." Another way is "she realizes that Amazon has so much political influence that it can tweet anything it wants at elected representatives without any consequences." So which is it? Is Amazon a private American corporation on equal footing with the government, simply exercising free speech, and evil Warren wants to stifle them? Or is Amazon an evil giant corporation making a PR power play because it has so much underhanded influence in politics and public opinion that it is guaranteed to make this end badly for Warren or anyone else who opposes them, and Warren is just looking to put them in check?
- busterarm 6y ago
  Elizabeth Warren comes off looking worse. Probably the most tonedeaf, opportunistic do-little in American politics. I still remember in the middle of the GME story how CNBC brought her on as the "great financial industry critic" to tow the industry line. Quite hilarious. Warren and Sanders are the very definition of controlled opposition. If they're your biggest critics, you're probably doing something right.
  - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
    By your argument, Amazon's aggressive stance towards Sanders and Alabama worker's unionization is an indication that they are doing something right.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      Having personally been in three different private sector unions, I would say that this is true. I am extremely critical of them, would not join one again and would change careers if my field significantly unionized. I've posted at length about this before. In the private sector, collective bargaining leads to worse outcomes both for employees and for consumers. Public sector unions (see federal employment) are an entirely different animal and generally have been very effective.
      - lumberingjack 6y ago
        absolutely this right now the drivers and deliverers are held accountable they get a union in there and get ready to never get your packages on time or if ever
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > bottle Then you'll need to avoid jobs like long haul trucker, construction crane operator, Air Force flight crew, or astronaut :-/
  - semi-extrinsic 6y ago
    For the latter two, peeing in a bottle/etc. is dictated by physical constraints. For the former two, they are dictated by late-stage capitalism. That's why Amazon drivers are protesting and astronauts are not.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      wut? Even before the industry was heavily regulated and hours limited, long-haul truckers chose to pee in bottles for efficiency. Faster, safer and made them more money. Also do you have any idea how long it takes to get in and out of a construction crane? And how dangerous? It's absolutely a physical constraint. Operators have to climb and it's about 15 minutes each way. They have to take breaks so they don't get sweaty. You absolutely do NOT want to do that when you're holding in piss.
      - edoceo 6y ago
        How is it safer to try to wizz while driving a huge machine at speed? Are truckers peeing ad driving at the same time?
        busterarm 6y ago
        https://www.roadreliefsystem.com/ https://www.roadreliefsystem.com/ https://www.amazon.com/trucker-urinal/s?k=trucker+urinal https://www.amazon.com/trucker-urinal/s?k=trucker+urinal Also most roads are straight and modern trucks are incredibly stable. Plus cruise control exists. Peeing while driving is really easy, especially in an elevated chair seat like they use. I've done it a few times.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- gremlinsinc 6y ago
  Jeff Bezos apparently has never heard of the Streisand Effect, or he's so rich he just doesn't care about what public perception is... Seriously, you don't pick a social media fight with Bernie Sanders or Warren they both have very strong social media teams, esp. when you're fighting against unionization....
- candybar 6y ago
  This makes Amazon look terrible but you do have to wonder about a world where politicians that control the most powerful government in the world are incentivized to play petty gotcha games on Twitter with their supporters cheering on, while we expect private corporations to be the adult in the room. The main reason why this makes Amazon look bad while politicians who do this (not taking sides here, this is clearly a bipartisan thing) get a pass is that our expectations for politicians are now so low that we don't expect anything but petty grandstanding and finger-pointing, while we expect Amazon to rise above partisan criticism.
omosubi 6y ago
I'm curious to see how this plays out. The security ticket seems to have the most reasonable opinion - I can't see a scenario where this plays well for amazon but they're a trillion dollar company and I'm not Any former warehouse workers here want to comment? (I'm guessing this will be astroturfed but might as well give it a shot)
- bob33212 6y ago
  My brother was a warehouse worker. It paid more than other jobs he has had but it also required him to work most of the time he was on the clock relative to other jobs. He quit because of the work load, not because he was expected to pee in bottles. Having interviewed for dev jobs at Amazon I think the reality is in the middle. Is Amazon a fun place to work? NO. Does Amazon try to abuse its employees? NO.
- cfqycwz 6y ago
  I can comment on this as a current Amazon worker! I think people pissing in bottles probably does happen in Amazon's vast network, but as a very, very rare exception. It makes for good public propaganda, but it's not the issue most salient to warehouse workers. There's a constant grind that Amazon puts on your body and brain. The work is monotonous. Your joints slowly break down from RSI. You get aches that you learn to compensate for or ignore. You learn to manage the pressure of the little screen at your work station that shows you the rate you've been packing at over the past ten minutes. You learn to manage the pressure of your co-workers at the next step in the process, who have their own little screens, and need you to work faster so they can work faster. The pay is better than most shit jobs, the benefits are good, the work rules are clear and the managers largely aren't abusive. The trade-off you make is that the physical and psychological demand is intense. There's a reason that the average Amazon FC worker lasts six months—I reckon Amazon's done the math and decided that high turnover is worth the extra productivity they can squeeze out of workers while they're there. In that sense, it's a bit of a shame that reporters and politicians focus so much on pee in bottles, because working at Amazon is still pretty ghoulish without it. I'm rooting for the workers at Bessemer. It will be very hard to build up the union density needed to really have negotiating leverage over Amazon, but you have to start somewhere!
asjldkfin 6y ago
I kind of empathize with Bezos, there's a certain tone of entitlement to this entire saga. Amazon doesn't own anybody a job, if working conditions are shit (but assuming it's legal), you should quit. If Amazon is your best option, then you should be grateful for it. If I went to work everyday, complained loudly about how much the job sucks, I wouldn't have a job anymore and I'd understand. To think I'd be able to criticize my organization and still be entitled to a job is lunacy.
- codeduck 6y ago
  Something being legal does not make it right or just.
  - asjldkfin 6y ago
    I would argue the "justice" system is the best determinant of what's "just" by definition.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - bavent 6y ago
      But ideas of what is “just” change and the justice system is often slow to react. Sometimes things that are technically unjust (banning gay marriage) are allowed. Slavery was once legal. Justice system at the time said so. Also, as an anecdote, speaking as someone who has participated in the justice system quite a bit, for me it was very rarely the best determinant of what was “just” on the small scale of my life. I would hesitate to assume on the larger scale of society as a whole it is any more accurate.
      - asjldkfin 6y ago
        The problem is that the "justice system" is the only universally agreed upon system. The alternative is everybody upholds their own justice and we have anarchy. If you want to change the justice system, go ahead. But there's a difference between changing labour laws and going after one specific company.
chrisseaton 6y ago
The title implies a much more interesting story in British English!
- ameen 6y ago
  For my fellow Americans, pissed in British English means “drunk” - which makes it even more hilarious.
PartiallyTyped 6y ago
Edit: I missed it, not the article. The article missed AOC's tweet where Amazon themselves noted that they found bags with feces and urine in delivery cars [1,2] [1] https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1375502593863073792 https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1375502593863073792 [2] https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottles-union/ https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottl...
- rincebrain 6y ago
  No, the article explicitly mentions "Amazon’s pushback on the congressman’s comment about workers peeing in bottles also ignited a new news cycle after The Intercept revealed internal Amazon communications acknowledging that contractors who deliver Amazon packages sometimes defecate in bags and urinate in bottles." (with the latter half being a link to that same The Intercept article)
- chrischen 6y ago
  One of the explanations for this is that due to covid most public restaurants/bathrooms were closed, forcing some drivers to resort to alternative means... At the very least I don't think it's fair to jump to any conclusion about Amazon forcing people to pee in bottles.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    You also have to realize that a lot of these people are making deliveries in suburban residential neighborhoods where the number of public restrooms rounds off to zero, and you can't just go inside somebody's house. Given a choice between peeing in a bottle or driving 30 minutes round trip to the nearest public restroom, I'm not about to condemn anyone who picks the first one purely out of convenience.
    - pessimizer 6y ago
      No one is condemning the drivers for anything.
lend000 6y ago
It seems it succeeded, by frustrating Warren and making it appear that she is significantly motivated by stifling dissenting voices, a possible abuse of the First Amendment [0]. I know there are lot of people here who identify with Warren's politics (myself included, to some degree), but petty personalities like hers aren't the ones we want in power. Thought there would be more awareness of that after the last presidential term. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-amazon-twitter-taxes-unionization-alabama-union-bezos-2021-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-amazon-twit...
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  Indeed, if politicans are going to adopt the practice of governance by snotty tweets they can expect business and constituents to do the same as they have been doing. I do wish everyone would stop though.
- busterarm 6y ago
  > I know there are lot of people here who identify with Warren's politics (myself included, to some degree), but petty personalities like hers aren't the ones we want in power. Thought there would be more awareness of that after the last presidential term. I just wanted to say that I identify a lot with your comment. I think tribalism is a stronger factor than you realize though and there seems to be little-to-no "same-sides" criticism in public. I've always been extremely critical of Warren, despite mostly being on the same side politically. I think she's among the worst that we have to offer...but tribalism is an extremely strong force in public discourse and politics, regretably. More importantly, she says really bombastic things that no one else is saying and make a subset of progressives feel really good. It gets a strong following. In fact, I think we can probably say the same about Sanders, Beto, Yang and Buttigeg. Each one of them appeals to a specific extreme and pulls all of the disparate voices into a single voting block. I think we on the left rely on this and probably can't cast those people out, no matter how much we need to.
11thEarlOfMar 6y ago
"There was terror inside the executive ranks of Amazon..." Raise your hand if you believe Amazon execs felt 'terror' in this circumstance.
- aaronbrethorst 6y ago
  Raises hand https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-...
throwawaysea 6y ago
Vox is showing their left/progressive bias by framing Amazon’s response as “snarky”, basically providing a journalistic shield for authoritarian legislators. Consider that Senator Elizabeth Warren threatened to break Amazon (a private corporation) up (https://mobile.twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1375529101931520007 https://mobile.twitter.com/amazonnews/status/137552910193152...) for having the temerity to speak against her (for speaking against the government, which is comprised of legislators like her). Personally I do think these giant tech monopolies/oligopolies should face antitrust scrutiny, but not for their exercise of their right to free speech. I also wonder how else would corporations respond to misleading populist narratives? Amazon provided a minimum wage of $15/hour with benefits without legislative pressure (although some like to claim their pressure caused it). They did so for completely unskilled labor that is not compensated this way by other companies that operate warehouses. Even so, they receive critique from these legislators that seemingly don’t understand how businesses work, how they create value, and how that adds up to a functional economy. That deserves a response - and I don’t think corporations should have to remain silent or speak with undue deference while these legislators whip up populist outrage. Their direct and firmly toned response wastes no words and serves to bring these legislators back to Earth.
- smt88 6y ago
  Vox was founded by two of the most famous, open liberals in journalism. They do publish opinionated articles, but the base facts are solid, and they often have conservative ideas and voices given equal consideration. They have also debunked liberal memes and talking points on many occasions, or at least said (truthfully) that a situation is more complicated than liberals would want people to think.
randompwd 6y ago
It also looks like Amazon bought likes for just those 2 tweets. All other recent tweets(both before and after) by that a/c get 20/30, nearly always less than 100 likes. And suddenly, these 2 tweets got ~4.8k and 9.6k? Also tied in with the fact that those tweets weren't by the regular social media team but through a webapp by unknown. Doesn't add up.
elil17 6y ago
For those criticizing Warren's tweet: remember that the idea that the first amendment applies to companies is a legal doctrine that was created in the 20th century (edit: specifically in a couple of Supreme Court cases in 1975 and 1976), not something inherent to the constitution. Saying that it's not Amazon's place to participate in politics is a view that I think most of her constituents would share.
- busterarm 6y ago
  Legal doctrines are rarely invented overnight and what you've said here is demonstrably untrue. Precedent (regardless of nation of origin) is probably the second most powerful source of laws, right after Natural Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
  - elil17 6y ago
    Corporate personhood =/= corporate free speech. In the very same Wikipedia article you linked it discusses Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs (1906), which establishes that corporations, while they are "people" for the purposes of contracts, are not entitled to 14th amendment protections. Fast forward to Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), the supreme court unanimously upholds the common law that the first amendment does not apply to corporations. The court suddenly reverses in 76' with Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.
    - busterarm 6y ago
      I can read and that case was well-covered. You're cherry-picking though and neglected to cite all of the contrary instances before it. It was long held that corporations held some of the protections of the Constitution. Which ones was not so clearly defined. First amendment protection is now so defined, but that does not make it brand new legal doctrine. It's based on long standing legal precedent. It is a clarification of law. You're making Valentine v. Chrestensen's decision much more broad than it actually is. Specifically, SCOTUS "ruled that commercial speech in public thoroughfares is not constitutionally protected" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v._Chrestensen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v._Chrestensen). Commercial speech has a very specific definition in law. It's about advertising. The decisions later about Hobby Lobby have very little to do with Valentine v Chrestensen nor Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, because Hobby Lobby's case was not about commercial speech. Same with Buckley v. Valeo, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission because they were about political speech.
kart23 6y ago
I wonder who writes the tweets and how much review there is. I would be freaked out if I was responsible for insulting a senator on behalf of a trillion dollar company.
- aaronbrethorst 6y ago
  You would be freaked out if you wrote a snarky, aggressive tweet directed at a US Senator on behalf of your employer? These people all have agency. And if they work in an environment where they'd fear being fired for not posting snarky, aggressive tweets targeting one of the most powerful lawmakers in the country, then maybe they should find a new place to work.

95 points by yoelo 6y ago

This made Amazon look quite childish honestly. I hope that union thing works out so there will be more checks and balances in place going forward. Those bottle peeing stories and all that surveillance is quite horrible... I also heard lower levels don't have access to the company directory anymore. So they basically got cut off from career and socializing opportunities also inside the company.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> This made Amazon look quite childish honestly. Don't you think it makes Warren look childish? She said she wants to break up big tech companies so that they aren't able to challenge her. I think that's an absolutely appalling thing for a lawmaker to say. Warren should be defending their right to challenger her, not attacking it, and she should be empowering institutions to challenge her, not attacking those that are. I can't understand how anyone is defending this craziness. It's chilling.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  If I have to choose to defend someone, it’s not Amazon and Bezos. He and chosen management had a choice on what sort of company and culture to build. Choose poorly and then be surprised when government and the public come after you? Relentlessly tactless and tone deaf.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Institutions should have the right to challenge lawmakers without thread of retribution for doing so, even if you don't like what they have to say.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      Agreed, but I also agree with Warren that Amazon should be broken up. Warren’s stance pales in comparison to the machine of suffering that is Amazon fulfillment/retail. Nuance and pragmatism.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        Does she want to break them up for for the benefit of the people she represents, or does she want to break them up because they're 'snotty' to her? She's explicitly said it's because of the latter. I hope it's because of the former, but I have to trust her own words are lies to believe that!
        busterarm 6y ago
        ...Elizabeth Warren is a serial liar.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    Warren isn't exactly mainstream government. She can't even get her "progressive" credentials consistent as she rarely misses an opportunity to be the hawk. She sure loves those foreign wars.
    - toomuchtodo 6y ago
      They aren’t making a whole lot of new conservatives in America. Centrist Democrats are either aging out or getting pushed out. Change takes time. Gotta defend against people like Bezos in the meantime ($187B? and still throwing a childish fit about your workers trying to have better working conditions? Really?).
      - busterarm 6y ago
        None of that makes Warren above criticism. And if you think America isn't minting a lot of new conservatives, I think you've been sleeping the last 6 years. Conservatives just had the biggest voter turnout that they've had since Ronald Reagan. And despite our Gen X/Millenial social circles which are heavily left, Zoomers are much more conservative than us.
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
        You were attacking and criticizing Warren (not I, as I focused on parties driven by ideas and moors), which doesn’t concern me and has little value regardless unless you vote in her state. The greater issue is what happens when speaking truth to power garners contempt and harm instead of cooperation and humility. Enter regulation, stage right.
        busterarm 6y ago
        Would you not say that Amazon's critical tweet of Warren was speaking truth to power?
        toomuchtodo 6y ago
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Legislators shouldn't be afraid of challengers. That said, it's reasonable to fear corporations with so many resources they capture regulators and can bankroll astroturfed challengers. I'd like both a balanced, accountable government and healthy, competitive markets please.
- elil17 6y ago
  Why should big tech companies be able to challenge democratically elected representatives? Shouldn't political participation be primarily in the hands of people, not special interests? I get that the question of whether corporations should have a role in politics is up for debate, but I think most of the people who elected Warren believe that there's no place for big money in politics.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Why should big tech companies be able to challenge democratically elected representatives? Every person and every (legal) institution should be able to (verbally and in writing) challenge a democratically elected representative. I can't understand why that even needs stating? She's literally threatening legislative retribution for being "snotty" to her. That's appalling, surely?
    - elil17 6y ago
      If Warren said that to a person I think it would absolutely be appalling and I get that in the current US legal system corporations have a right to free speech. I just don't think that's an intrinsic moral right the way it is for people. I think it's a valid, reasonable view that Amazon should not be able to influence politics in any way.
- HomeDeLaPot 6y ago
  One way to interpret Warren's tweet is "she doesn't believe that private corporations should have the ability to stand up to politicians." Another way is "she realizes that Amazon has so much political influence that it can tweet anything it wants at elected representatives without any consequences." So which is it? Is Amazon a private American corporation on equal footing with the government, simply exercising free speech, and evil Warren wants to stifle them? Or is Amazon an evil giant corporation making a PR power play because it has so much underhanded influence in politics and public opinion that it is guaranteed to make this end badly for Warren or anyone else who opposes them, and Warren is just looking to put them in check?
busterarm 6y ago
Elizabeth Warren comes off looking worse. Probably the most tonedeaf, opportunistic do-little in American politics. I still remember in the middle of the GME story how CNBC brought her on as the "great financial industry critic" to tow the industry line. Quite hilarious. Warren and Sanders are the very definition of controlled opposition. If they're your biggest critics, you're probably doing something right.
- PartiallyTyped 6y ago
  By your argument, Amazon's aggressive stance towards Sanders and Alabama worker's unionization is an indication that they are doing something right.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    Having personally been in three different private sector unions, I would say that this is true. I am extremely critical of them, would not join one again and would change careers if my field significantly unionized. I've posted at length about this before. In the private sector, collective bargaining leads to worse outcomes both for employees and for consumers. Public sector unions (see federal employment) are an entirely different animal and generally have been very effective.
    - lumberingjack 6y ago
      absolutely this right now the drivers and deliverers are held accountable they get a union in there and get ready to never get your packages on time or if ever
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
WalterBright 6y ago
> bottle Then you'll need to avoid jobs like long haul trucker, construction crane operator, Air Force flight crew, or astronaut :-/
- semi-extrinsic 6y ago
  For the latter two, peeing in a bottle/etc. is dictated by physical constraints. For the former two, they are dictated by late-stage capitalism. That's why Amazon drivers are protesting and astronauts are not.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    wut? Even before the industry was heavily regulated and hours limited, long-haul truckers chose to pee in bottles for efficiency. Faster, safer and made them more money. Also do you have any idea how long it takes to get in and out of a construction crane? And how dangerous? It's absolutely a physical constraint. Operators have to climb and it's about 15 minutes each way. They have to take breaks so they don't get sweaty. You absolutely do NOT want to do that when you're holding in piss.
    - edoceo 6y ago
      How is it safer to try to wizz while driving a huge machine at speed? Are truckers peeing ad driving at the same time?
      - busterarm 6y ago
        https://www.roadreliefsystem.com/ https://www.roadreliefsystem.com/ https://www.amazon.com/trucker-urinal/s?k=trucker+urinal https://www.amazon.com/trucker-urinal/s?k=trucker+urinal Also most roads are straight and modern trucks are incredibly stable. Plus cruise control exists. Peeing while driving is really easy, especially in an elevated chair seat like they use. I've done it a few times.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
gremlinsinc 6y ago
Jeff Bezos apparently has never heard of the Streisand Effect, or he's so rich he just doesn't care about what public perception is... Seriously, you don't pick a social media fight with Bernie Sanders or Warren they both have very strong social media teams, esp. when you're fighting against unionization....
candybar 6y ago
This makes Amazon look terrible but you do have to wonder about a world where politicians that control the most powerful government in the world are incentivized to play petty gotcha games on Twitter with their supporters cheering on, while we expect private corporations to be the adult in the room. The main reason why this makes Amazon look bad while politicians who do this (not taking sides here, this is clearly a bipartisan thing) get a pass is that our expectations for politicians are now so low that we don't expect anything but petty grandstanding and finger-pointing, while we expect Amazon to rise above partisan criticism.

omosubi 6y ago

I'm curious to see how this plays out. The security ticket seems to have the most reasonable opinion - I can't see a scenario where this plays well for amazon but they're a trillion dollar company and I'm not Any former warehouse workers here want to comment? (I'm guessing this will be astroturfed but might as well give it a shot)

bob33212 6y ago
My brother was a warehouse worker. It paid more than other jobs he has had but it also required him to work most of the time he was on the clock relative to other jobs. He quit because of the work load, not because he was expected to pee in bottles. Having interviewed for dev jobs at Amazon I think the reality is in the middle. Is Amazon a fun place to work? NO. Does Amazon try to abuse its employees? NO.
cfqycwz 6y ago
I can comment on this as a current Amazon worker! I think people pissing in bottles probably does happen in Amazon's vast network, but as a very, very rare exception. It makes for good public propaganda, but it's not the issue most salient to warehouse workers. There's a constant grind that Amazon puts on your body and brain. The work is monotonous. Your joints slowly break down from RSI. You get aches that you learn to compensate for or ignore. You learn to manage the pressure of the little screen at your work station that shows you the rate you've been packing at over the past ten minutes. You learn to manage the pressure of your co-workers at the next step in the process, who have their own little screens, and need you to work faster so they can work faster. The pay is better than most shit jobs, the benefits are good, the work rules are clear and the managers largely aren't abusive. The trade-off you make is that the physical and psychological demand is intense. There's a reason that the average Amazon FC worker lasts six months—I reckon Amazon's done the math and decided that high turnover is worth the extra productivity they can squeeze out of workers while they're there. In that sense, it's a bit of a shame that reporters and politicians focus so much on pee in bottles, because working at Amazon is still pretty ghoulish without it. I'm rooting for the workers at Bessemer. It will be very hard to build up the union density needed to really have negotiating leverage over Amazon, but you have to start somewhere!

asjldkfin 6y ago

I kind of empathize with Bezos, there's a certain tone of entitlement to this entire saga. Amazon doesn't own anybody a job, if working conditions are shit (but assuming it's legal), you should quit. If Amazon is your best option, then you should be grateful for it. If I went to work everyday, complained loudly about how much the job sucks, I wouldn't have a job anymore and I'd understand. To think I'd be able to criticize my organization and still be entitled to a job is lunacy.

codeduck 6y ago
Something being legal does not make it right or just.
- asjldkfin 6y ago
  I would argue the "justice" system is the best determinant of what's "just" by definition.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - bavent 6y ago
    But ideas of what is “just” change and the justice system is often slow to react. Sometimes things that are technically unjust (banning gay marriage) are allowed. Slavery was once legal. Justice system at the time said so. Also, as an anecdote, speaking as someone who has participated in the justice system quite a bit, for me it was very rarely the best determinant of what was “just” on the small scale of my life. I would hesitate to assume on the larger scale of society as a whole it is any more accurate.
    - asjldkfin 6y ago
      The problem is that the "justice system" is the only universally agreed upon system. The alternative is everybody upholds their own justice and we have anarchy. If you want to change the justice system, go ahead. But there's a difference between changing labour laws and going after one specific company.

chrisseaton 6y ago

The title implies a much more interesting story in British English!

ameen 6y ago
For my fellow Americans, pissed in British English means “drunk” - which makes it even more hilarious.

PartiallyTyped 6y ago

Edit: I missed it, not the article. The article missed AOC's tweet where Amazon themselves noted that they found bags with feces and urine in delivery cars [1,2] [1] https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1375502593863073792 https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1375502593863073792 [2] https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottles-union/ https://theintercept.com/2021/03/25/amazon-drivers-pee-bottl...

rincebrain 6y ago
No, the article explicitly mentions "Amazon’s pushback on the congressman’s comment about workers peeing in bottles also ignited a new news cycle after The Intercept revealed internal Amazon communications acknowledging that contractors who deliver Amazon packages sometimes defecate in bags and urinate in bottles." (with the latter half being a link to that same The Intercept article)
chrischen 6y ago
One of the explanations for this is that due to covid most public restaurants/bathrooms were closed, forcing some drivers to resort to alternative means... At the very least I don't think it's fair to jump to any conclusion about Amazon forcing people to pee in bottles.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  You also have to realize that a lot of these people are making deliveries in suburban residential neighborhoods where the number of public restrooms rounds off to zero, and you can't just go inside somebody's house. Given a choice between peeing in a bottle or driving 30 minutes round trip to the nearest public restroom, I'm not about to condemn anyone who picks the first one purely out of convenience.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    No one is condemning the drivers for anything.

lend000 6y ago

It seems it succeeded, by frustrating Warren and making it appear that she is significantly motivated by stifling dissenting voices, a possible abuse of the First Amendment [0]. I know there are lot of people here who identify with Warren's politics (myself included, to some degree), but petty personalities like hers aren't the ones we want in power. Thought there would be more awareness of that after the last presidential term. [0] https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-amazon-twitter-taxes-unionization-alabama-union-bezos-2021-3 https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-warren-amazon-twit...

gameswithgo 6y ago
Indeed, if politicans are going to adopt the practice of governance by snotty tweets they can expect business and constituents to do the same as they have been doing. I do wish everyone would stop though.
busterarm 6y ago
> I know there are lot of people here who identify with Warren's politics (myself included, to some degree), but petty personalities like hers aren't the ones we want in power. Thought there would be more awareness of that after the last presidential term. I just wanted to say that I identify a lot with your comment. I think tribalism is a stronger factor than you realize though and there seems to be little-to-no "same-sides" criticism in public. I've always been extremely critical of Warren, despite mostly being on the same side politically. I think she's among the worst that we have to offer...but tribalism is an extremely strong force in public discourse and politics, regretably. More importantly, she says really bombastic things that no one else is saying and make a subset of progressives feel really good. It gets a strong following. In fact, I think we can probably say the same about Sanders, Beto, Yang and Buttigeg. Each one of them appeals to a specific extreme and pulls all of the disparate voices into a single voting block. I think we on the left rely on this and probably can't cast those people out, no matter how much we need to.

11thEarlOfMar 6y ago

"There was terror inside the executive ranks of Amazon..." Raise your hand if you believe Amazon execs felt 'terror' in this circumstance.

aaronbrethorst 6y ago
Raises hand https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-...

throwawaysea 6y ago

Vox is showing their left/progressive bias by framing Amazon’s response as “snarky”, basically providing a journalistic shield for authoritarian legislators. Consider that Senator Elizabeth Warren threatened to break Amazon (a private corporation) up (https://mobile.twitter.com/amazonnews/status/1375529101931520007 https://mobile.twitter.com/amazonnews/status/137552910193152...) for having the temerity to speak against her (for speaking against the government, which is comprised of legislators like her). Personally I do think these giant tech monopolies/oligopolies should face antitrust scrutiny, but not for their exercise of their right to free speech. I also wonder how else would corporations respond to misleading populist narratives? Amazon provided a minimum wage of $15/hour with benefits without legislative pressure (although some like to claim their pressure caused it). They did so for completely unskilled labor that is not compensated this way by other companies that operate warehouses. Even so, they receive critique from these legislators that seemingly don’t understand how businesses work, how they create value, and how that adds up to a functional economy. That deserves a response - and I don’t think corporations should have to remain silent or speak with undue deference while these legislators whip up populist outrage. Their direct and firmly toned response wastes no words and serves to bring these legislators back to Earth.

smt88 6y ago
Vox was founded by two of the most famous, open liberals in journalism. They do publish opinionated articles, but the base facts are solid, and they often have conservative ideas and voices given equal consideration. They have also debunked liberal memes and talking points on many occasions, or at least said (truthfully) that a situation is more complicated than liberals would want people to think.

randompwd 6y ago

It also looks like Amazon bought likes for just those 2 tweets. All other recent tweets(both before and after) by that a/c get 20/30, nearly always less than 100 likes. And suddenly, these 2 tweets got ~4.8k and 9.6k? Also tied in with the fact that those tweets weren't by the regular social media team but through a webapp by unknown. Doesn't add up.

elil17 6y ago

For those criticizing Warren's tweet: remember that the idea that the first amendment applies to companies is a legal doctrine that was created in the 20th century (edit: specifically in a couple of Supreme Court cases in 1975 and 1976), not something inherent to the constitution. Saying that it's not Amazon's place to participate in politics is a view that I think most of her constituents would share.

busterarm 6y ago
Legal doctrines are rarely invented overnight and what you've said here is demonstrably untrue. Precedent (regardless of nation of origin) is probably the second most powerful source of laws, right after Natural Law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
- elil17 6y ago
  Corporate personhood =/= corporate free speech. In the very same Wikipedia article you linked it discusses Northwestern Nat Life Ins. Co. v. Riggs (1906), which establishes that corporations, while they are "people" for the purposes of contracts, are not entitled to 14th amendment protections. Fast forward to Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942), the supreme court unanimously upholds the common law that the first amendment does not apply to corporations. The court suddenly reverses in 76' with Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.
  - busterarm 6y ago
    I can read and that case was well-covered. You're cherry-picking though and neglected to cite all of the contrary instances before it. It was long held that corporations held some of the protections of the Constitution. Which ones was not so clearly defined. First amendment protection is now so defined, but that does not make it brand new legal doctrine. It's based on long standing legal precedent. It is a clarification of law. You're making Valentine v. Chrestensen's decision much more broad than it actually is. Specifically, SCOTUS "ruled that commercial speech in public thoroughfares is not constitutionally protected" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v._Chrestensen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentine_v._Chrestensen). Commercial speech has a very specific definition in law. It's about advertising. The decisions later about Hobby Lobby have very little to do with Valentine v Chrestensen nor Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, because Hobby Lobby's case was not about commercial speech. Same with Buckley v. Valeo, and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission because they were about political speech.

kart23 6y ago

I wonder who writes the tweets and how much review there is. I would be freaked out if I was responsible for insulting a senator on behalf of a trillion dollar company.

aaronbrethorst 6y ago
You would be freaked out if you wrote a snarky, aggressive tweet directed at a US Senator on behalf of your employer? These people all have agency. And if they work in an environment where they'd fear being fired for not posting snarky, aggressive tweets targeting one of the most powerful lawmakers in the country, then maybe they should find a new place to work.